Not “inconceivable” – but rather, “God.” Check out this interesting post, The Dread God Roberts, at our friend Dr. James McGrath’s blog Exploring Our Matrix. (Which amazingly, just had its 10th birthday. He was blogging way before it was cool.) Dr. McGrath describes himself as a Progressive Christian. I commented over there, and he’s replied. The part of his post that got me going was this. Tillich’s… Read More »Atheistic belief in “God”
Suppose you want to really study my entry “Trinity“ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you’re like me, when you want to really read something, you’ll print it out (and then proceed to destroy it with a pencil and a highlighter). And if you do print it all out, it’ll make your printer burst out in tears. The whole thing, with supplementary discussions, comes… Read More »“Trinity” in paperback form
“Liza, do you have any money?” “Nope.” “Hey – I see you’ve got money in your right pocket! Why’d you say that?” “I meant that I had no money in my left pocket.” “But that’s not what you said! You said you didn’t have any money.” “But it was true that I didn’t have any in my left pocket.” “Liza, what is lying?” “It is… Read More »Jesus is no Liza
Minister Jeremy Myers asks: “Did Jesus Learn?“ (HT: James McGrath on Facebook)
Great post. One favorite bit:
At one point in our discussion, I said, “Well, it seems logical that if Jesus was fully human, then He had to learn.” Their response was, “I don’t use logic. I just use Scripture.” I just about broke out laughing. It seemed pretty obvious to me that logic was not being used. Ha! One guy also kept saying, “I don’t speculate about Scripture. I just believe what it says.”
Oh, “logic” (really, human reasoning ability) was being used… just not well! 😉
In any case, he answers the question of the post affirmatively.
I agree with Jeremy that according to the New Testament, Jesus learned. Any theory about Jesus must incorporate this fact. And while he was doing that, there were truths he did not know.
But that gives rise to this argument:
I would say, in evaluation of this argument:Read More »Jeremy Myers asks: “Did Jesus Learn?”
At his blog An Open Orthodoxy. In (of course) three parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. I demur in some comments. Check out their posts and comment there. Tom Belt and Dwayne Polk are open theists. I take it that the title of the blog emphasizes that they are truly catholic – that on the things that really matter, they agree with mainstream Christians.… Read More »Tom Belt on the Trinity
I argue that the theoretical costs of Bauckham’s theory outweigh its theoretical benefits.
Here’s a sermon by my friend Pastor J. Dan Gill, expounding the important New Testament theme of the exaltation of Jesus. He discusses texts including Psalm 110 and Acts 2. You can download the audio of this sermon here. Dan and his wife Sharon run the 21st Century Reformation website, an important resource for biblical unitarians (aka unitarian Christians, one God believers, non-trinitarian Christians). Their… Read More »Pastor J. Dan Gill on the real Jesus
Somehow I missed this when it came out back in July. Our friend the Tentative Apologist Randal Rauser has a podcast (itunes) now, and he’s done a substantial, no-bs interview of leading Reformed analytic theologian Oliver Crisp, of Fuller Seminary. Listen to it at Randal’s blog here. Crisp does a good job presenting and giving a basic defense of the coherence of the traditional catholic… Read More »analytic theologian Oliver Crisp on the coherence of Incarnation
The Apostles’ Creed is one of the most beloved and most widely used creeds in the Christian world. Is it really by Jesus’s original twelve apostles? Why is it so popular? Is it the one truly uncontroversial creed, something which all Christians – Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, pentecostal, etc. can agree on? And is it the most ancient Christian creed we possess? We’ll answer these questions in this, our… Read More »podcast 12 – the Apostles’ Creed
Like most Christian philosophers, I think David Hume (1711-76) was brilliant, but mistaken about most of the important religious topics he wrote on. Though he says some silly things earlier in the chapter, I could not help but be impressed by this powerful blast of rhetoric from chapter 11 of Hume’s Natural History of Religion (1757). He speaks with all the bitterness and bile of an Enlightenment philosopher raised in a human-reason-hating form of Calvinist Christianity. In the end it is just rhetoric; I don’t see any interesting argument here against mysterians.
But I do agree with Hume that humans have an appetite for “mysteries” – be they apparent contradictions or simply very unclear but profound-sounding claims. I’ve commented on this, I think, as far back as 2003, before reading Hume on this. Philosophical faults aside, he is always an insightful observer of human nature and human history.
I’ve added some emphases and explanations in brackets and a link below. Full text is here.
But [in contrast to polytheistic traditions,] where theism forms the fundamental principle of any popular religion, that tenet is so conformable to sound reason, that philosophy is apt to incorporate itself with such a system of theology. And if the other dogmas of that system be contained in a sacred book, such as the Alcoran [the Qur’an], or be determined by any visible authority, like that of the Roman pontif, speculative reasoners naturally carry on their assent, and embrace a theory which has been instilled into them by their earliest education, and which also possesses some degree of consistence and uniformity. But as these appearances are sure, all of them, to prove deceitful, philosophy will soon find herself very unequally yoked Read More »David Hume vs. Mysterians
Though he’s the first on record to use the Latin word “trinitas,” he was in fact a sort of unitarian.
This week, an interview with Dr. Scott Williams, an analytic theologian, trained by some of the best out there, who loves to tackle those hard to read medieval philosopher-theologians like John Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and Henry of Ghent. Specifically, we discuss this recent paper of his, which I briefly discussed in a previous post. His main interest is in different versions of “LT” –… Read More »podcast 10 – Dr. Scott Williams on “Latin” Trinity Theories
The year was 1986. A young George W. Bush visited a psychic. “You have a great future ahead of you,” said the psychic, peering at the lines in Bush’s palm. “I know! My Daddy‘s vice president after all.” “Someday, you will be famous, for you will invade Iraq. Beware, oh ancient land, for Bush himself is coming to subdue you!” Bush was speechless. He couldn’t… Read More »proving that Bush = Sgt. Speedo
In this episode I get post-debate reflections from the (biblical) unitarian Christian debater, Steve Katsaras. He’s the founding pastor of the Red Words Church in Melbourne, Australia . His sermons are regularly podcasted here. If he sounds a little sleepy, that’s my fault; I asked him to talk to me on the same night as the debate, and he graciously agreed. We discuss highlights of… Read More »podcast 9 – post-debate interview with Pastor Steve Katsaras
My “On Baukham’s Bargain” has drawn a response from my biggest fan, the Reformed brawler Steve Hays. I reply in the comments there.
Given how many evangelicals have jumped on the Bauckham Bandwagon, I hope that it’ll get some serious discussion in the journals or elsewhere.
Here’s my first reply to his post:
Steve, it’s odd to spend so many words sniping at my summary of what Bauckham holds forth as advantages of his theory. e.g. After the seventh point (of Bauckham’s!) you object, “That’s a diversionary tactic.” Is that an objection to Bauckham?
Read all the way through, then think, and then, finally start objecting.
About the “fatal concession”, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The time-explicit version of the indiscernibility of identicals is all I need to make the point.Read More »My diabolical “ruse” exposed – drat!
This episode is a second post-debate interview, this time with Islamic apologist Shahir Naga. We had a good conversation, discussing, among other things, the worship of Jesus and where Mr. Naga is originally from. Thanks to Mr. Naga for a good interview. He is a seeker of truth, and is a pleasure to dialogue with. You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate,… Read More »podcast 8 – post-debate interview with Mr. Shahir Naga
About a week after the debate, I interviewed Dr. Bernie Power for his post-debate thoughts. Among other things, he adds an argument from divine perfection to divine tri-unity, and comments on Christian-Muslim discussions and misunderstandings. Asked about Muslim apologists like Admed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik, he recommends work by Jay Smith and Sam Green. About Jesus, Dr. Power emphasizes that we need to allow… Read More »podcast 7 – post-debate interview with Dr. Bernie Power
This episode features this 2013 discussion/informal debate about Jesus in Melbourne, Australia, featuring a trinitarian Christian (Dr. Bernie Power), a unitarian Christian (Pastor Steve Katsaras), and a Muslim (Mr. Shahir Naga). The audio is a little rough; I’ve cleaned it up a little for this episode. Here is the video from which this audio is taken. Many thanks to the City Bible Forum in Melbourne… Read More »podcast 6 – the “Jesus: Prophet, Messiah, God?” Debate in Melbourne, Australia
This was updated last two Fridays ago. I put a lot of work into this revision. I’ll do a podcast some time discussing some of the changes and additions. Most changes were to the main entry, rather than to the Supplementary Documents. I hope that people find it useful. I owe a special thanks to Brian Leftow, who patiently helped me to avoid some serious… Read More »update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Theology blogger / author / golf pro Kermit Zarley asks: Is Jesus Divine Because He Was Worshipped?
He answers in the negative. As usual, he highlights some important scholarship. In part,
When the gospel Evangelists report that someone performed proskuneo toward Jesus, Bible translators invariably reveal their Christological bias by rendering it “worship,” suggesting that that person thought Jesus was “divine” or “God.” But when the Evangelists relate that a person performed proskuneo toward someone other than Jesus, they translate it “bowed down,” “bend the knee,” or “prostrate.” So, they translate it “worship” when done to Jesus, but a physical act when done to someone else.
I agree that it is important that Christians should worship Jesus too, and not only God. The New Testament, in my view, clearly teaches this; it is a consequence of his being raised to God’s right hand. I also agree that this is not at all the sin of idolatry.
Keep in mind that the passages he’s discussing above concern Jesus before his resurrection and exaltation. He is clearly worshiped in the fullest religious sense after. e.g. Philippians 2, Revelation 5, as well as prayed to.
Contrary to Mr. Zarley, I do think it is technically a violation of the command, now made out of date by the one who issued it, to worship only Yahweh (i.e. the Father). I would add that it’s simply not correct to define the sin of idolatry as worshiping anyone other than God.
I don’t think we can make much progress distinguishing kinds of (religious) worship. To say there are kinds of worship is one thing, but to display the differences is another. But we can distinguish indirect from direct worship, as the New Testament does in several places. We worship God (indirect object) by worshiping his Son (direct object).
Here’s another angle. In the NT, the justification given for worshiping Jesus is that this is our obeying the God who vindicated, raised, and exalted Jesus. Now, if we should worship Jesus because he’s fully divine, or because he’s God himself, or because he shares a divine nature with the Father… wouldn’t that be their main reason?
Below the fold, much better music than we usually feature on this blog. Read More »Zarley on “worship” of Jesus in the New Testament